Out On The Weekend

In which we discover that the federal system of killing people still works.

(Permanent Musical Accompaniment To The Last Post Of The Week From The Blog's Favourite Living Canadian)

And Eric Rudolph is still alive.

It wasn't going to end any other way for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, not after it was determined that a trial that fairly screamed for a change of venue wouldn't get one. (They tried Tim McVeigh in Denver, after all.) The whole proceeding was a public ritual of expiation, and now the ritual will be completed, maybe a decade from now, with the one blood sacrifice that the law allows. It was indeed darkly amusing to hear U. S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz wax sententiously about due process of law. Aaron Swartz's loved ones must have been amused. But this one was over as a legal proceeding almost before the first gavel fell.

Judging by the punditry, it is the popular "reasonable" liberal position to say that you don't agree with the death penalty, but if you did, Tsarnaev would be the perfect candidate for it. Which is a moral contortionist's masterpiece. Why Tsarnaev and not Rudolph? Or Kaczynski? Why are they somehow less "perfect" candidates for the exercise of national retribution? You start measuring your choices like that and, pretty soon, you need an electron microscope. Nobody is the "perfect" candidate for the death penalty because the death penalty is an abomination in a free society. One by one, the several states are coming to realize this. The federal government is bringing up the rear on the issue. This is disproportionate and grotesque.

(Also, can we hear again about how we have to keep The Evil Ones locked away at Gitmo because the federal civilian criminal-justice system can't handle them? The same day that Tsarnaev was condemned to death, a former aide to Osama bin Laden was sentenced to life without parole in a New York federal court. In neither case did magical Super Muslims appear to vaporize the walls of the courthouses with their heat vision. And, yes, Lindsey Graham is a hysterical fool.)

So the system got what it was aiming for all along. Some day, maybe a decade from now, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be killed by the federal government. And Eric Rudolph will still be alive.

I don't know what to make of the mess concerning The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs, except that he probably should have told his bosses at ABC. Any situation that allows Howard Kurtz to employ the phrase "conflict of interest" without his tongue's turning to a serpent and his fingertips to flame can never be a good one. Elite political journalism in this country is a whorehouse with 500 piano players. Roger Ailes is picking candidates outright, and I'm supposed to be horrified that a former Clinton aide gave some dough to a Clinton charitable foundation. Jesus, George, just stop apologizing already.

I think Jonathan Chait gets most of it right and then, alas, falls back into a booth at the cocktail lounge of the Mena Airport. There is a concerted attempt to use the Clinton Foundation to destroy Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, and the people engaged in it do not care if they destroy the vast charitable enterprises of the campaign along the way. Chait is correct when he points out:

The mere fact that a donation might come with an ulterior motive does not taint all donations. If Stephanopoulos needed some angle to get in the room with the Clintons, donating to their foundation would not be the way to do it.

But then, inevitably, the ironclad Clinton Rules fall upon us again.

He is the victim of the ethical taint of the Clintons' poorly handled business dealings, combined with an underlying right-wing suspicion of the liberal media, but what his critics have yet to produce is a coherent case against him.

The "ethical taint" is what you mention when you really got nothin'. There's nothing unethical per se in handling your business dealings poorly, even if you believe the Clintons did, which I don't necessarily. (Here's Ken Vogel, checking in from Morocco with another beauty:There is no evidence that she tailored her official positions to suit Morocco's preferences because of personal or financial relationships. But the overlap between her diplomatic portfolio and the funding for her family's philanthropy illustrates the way nearly any foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation can be viewed through the prism of U.S. policy. And it highlights why countries, companies and individuals that could benefit from her past and possibly future public service might be inclined to support the foundation. And monkeys might fly out of my...never mind.) Have I mentioned that I already hate this campaign?

And, speaking of elite level journalism, this also happened. We are all living in a fool's parodies.

Weekly Visit To The Pathe Archives: Here's a newsreel from 1948 about whether or not the UK should do away with hanging.The Commons passed a bill to suspend it, but the Lords rejected it. 'Twas ever thus. History is so cool.

The paleontologist at Yale University and University of Chicago is trying to learn more about the evolutionary stepping stones that led from dinosaurs to birds by altering the molecular makeup of modern fowl so they exhibit ancient attributes.

Remarkably, the new research, published this week in the journal Evolution, reveals you can give rise to reptilian snouts simply by inhibiting a select few genes in chickens. Knock out the beak, and a snout pops up in its place. "We've demonstrated a part of the underlying molecular mechanism in the evolutionary transition - the characteristic bird face," Bhullar told CBS News.

This guy will have his own show on The Learning Channel by December. Guaranteed.

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Esquire participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.